State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission
Bharti Airtel Limited vs Satish Kumar Verma And Others on 3 November, 2011
STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION UTTARAKHAND
DEHRADUN
REVISION PETITION NO. 02 / 2010
Bharti Airtel Limited
(Erstwhile known as Bharti Cellular Limited)
having its Registered Office at
Ararvali Crescent, 1, Nelson Mandela Road
Vasant Kunj, New Delhi - 110070
......Revisionist / Opposite Party No. 3
Versus
1. Sh. Satish Kumar Verma S/o Sh. Harish Chander Verma
through Consumer Kalyan Samiti
Kashipur, District Udham Singh Nagar
......Respondent No. 1 / Complainant
2. Manager, Sh. Sai Communications
Cheema Chouraha
Kashipur
3. Sh. Narender Gupta
Director, Legal Regulatory Affairs
Bharti Airtel Limited
Gurgaon, Haryana
......Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 / Opposite Party Nos. 1 and 2
Sh. Deepak Ahluwalia, Learned Counsel for the Revisionist
None for Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal, President
Mr. C.C. Pant, Member
Mrs. Kusum Lata Sharma, Member
Dated: 03/11/2011
ORDER
Per: Justice B.C. Kandpal, President (Oral):
This revision petition has been preferred under Section 17(1)(b) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986 against the order dated 04.03.2010 passed by the District Forum, Udham Singh Nagar in consumer complaint No. 108 of 2009. By the order impugned, the District Forum has dismissed the application moved by the revisionist 2 and directed the opposite parties to file their written statement by 30.03.2010.
2. The complainant had filed a consumer complaint before the District Forum, alleging therein that he has been issued telephone bill of excessive amount and prayed for cancellation of the bill and also sought ancillary reliefs.
3. The revisionist moved an application before the District Forum and pleaded that the consumer complaint is barred by Section 7B of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 and the same is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and hence the same be dismissed.
4. The District Forum vide impugned order dated 04.03.2010, dismissed the application of the revisionist. Aggrieved, the revisionist has filed the present revision petition.
5. None appeared on behalf of the respondents. We have heard the learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record.
6. Learned counsel for the revisionist has submitted that the dispute between the subscriber and private mobile operator is not maintainable before the Consumer Forum and the same has to be resolved by taking recourse to arbitration proceedings only, as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of General Manager, Telecom Vs. M. Krishnan and another; III (2009) CPJ 71 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when there is a special remedy provided in Section 7B of the Telegraph Act regarding disputes in respect of telephone bills, then the remedy under the Consumer Protection Act, is by implication, barred. In support of his submission, learned counsel pressed into service the decision of 3 this Commission rendered in Revision Petition No. 33 of 2009; Idea Cellular Ltd. Vs. Sh. O.P. Kohli, decided on 01.12.2010.
7. In view of the above situation, we find force in the submission raised by the learned counsel for the revisionist and we are of the definite view that the District Forum has acted in the exercise of its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity and the order impugned passed by the District Forum can not be sustained and the consumer complaint was not maintainable before the Consumer Forum.
8. For the reasons aforesaid, revision petition is allowed. Order impugned dated 04.03.2010 passed by the District Forum is set aside and consumer complaint No. 108 of 2009 is dismissed. The complainant shall have the option to resort to the arbitration proceedings for adjudication of the dispute with the service provider under the provisions of Indian Telegraph Act, 1885. No order as to costs.
(SMT. KUSUM LATA SHARMA) (C.C. PANT) (JUSTICE B.C. KANDPAL) K